• panda_abyss@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    19 hours ago

    “These aren’t real candidates. They aren’t campaigning. They aren’t engaging with constituents,” Poilievre wrote.

    Boy, that sounds a whole lot like how none of the CPC candidates showed up to any of my local debates or showed up on a single local news or radio program, or took a single interview.

    Frankly, I don’t think we should be limited from running for office based on their percieved level of seriousness or that it’s a protest. That’s a slippery slope right there. We can increase the signatures or whatever, but it’s still not going to be particularly useful and will primarily increase the floor of how much money you need to actually campaign.

  • SirMaple__@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    edit-2
    22 hours ago

    How about we change it so you have to LIVE in the riding you’re running in?

  • NGram@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    1 day ago

    If we’re opening up the electoral reform can of worms can we get the important parts too? You know, like proportional representation? Or is Poilievre too scared of strong democracy to talk about that?

  • LimpRimble@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    1 day ago

    So, he wants to improve democracy by being able to pre-approve who is allowed to run against him?

  • HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    1 day ago

    The Longest Ballot Committee is also seeking a change to the electoral system.

    It wants a citizens’ assembly put in charge of crafting a new electoral system, and argues that political parties are reluctant to make the government more representative of a diverse electorate.

    This is a good thing to fight for. PP’s whingy excuse is not.

    • dermanus@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 hours ago

      I agree, it’s a hard problem to solve because the people who get into power with the current system have the least incentive to change it.

  • HertzDentalBar@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    23 hours ago

    How about we ban these by-elections that only exist to give a loser a second chance. Idgaf I’d it’s libs, cins, NDP, bloc, crab people, no one should get to run a second time just because they are party leader.

    • grte@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      Not to mention this asshole getting a do-over is costing the Canadian taxpayer a bit of money. I expect a personal thank you note for the charity, Poilievre.

      • Capybara@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        20 hours ago

        The only reason the seat is vacant is because they wanted to give PP another chance. Without that, they still have their MP.

          • Capybara@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            17 hours ago

            Sure. Then you run the election and if anybody else in the area wants to run in the same party as the person who left then the party can put them on the ballot. If not, then no candidate for that party. Don’t drop somebody in from elsewhere. Pretty simple. Just pick a time period that a person needs to have lived in a riding (say, one full election cycle) before running to represent the area.

            If the person wins the election and moves (other than to government housing in Ottawa so they can do their job) then they give up their seat.

          • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            17 hours ago

            To add on to this, unless we enact political slavery, which while it might sound fun is not likely to make politicians who are subject to it vote in the best interests of the country, then politicians are going to be able to leave their positions at any time anyways, so a by-election is the only reasonable way to ensure the constituents of their riding are properly represented. And if you put some kind of significant delay before people can run in a by-election keep in mind this one is already going to be about 6 months since the last one, and that becomes less of an impediment the richer you are, meaning it gives an advantage to wealthy parachute politicians with no real benefit to citizens.

      • HertzDentalBar@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        19 hours ago

        The person who wins gets it…

        Personally I don’t think we should even select a prime minister till after the election so people don’t just vote for the “leader” over the local candidate. PM is chosen by winning party from winning MPs

        • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          18 hours ago

          All MPs vote on who the PM is after the election already, they just usually vote for their party leader

  • njm1314@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    1 day ago

    The irony of him making his complaint after he moved to this area just so he could guarantee his election. That’s a way bigger problem. Infinitely bigger

  • veee@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    1 day ago

    It’s not enough that Pierre runs in the safest byelection in the country, the runway has to be bubble wrapped as well.

  • floofloof@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Can we get a law to ban opportunist right-wing dickbags with no skills or ideas?

    Before anyone objects: not really, I’m just very sick of this man.

    • teppa@piefed.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Tying immigration to housing completions seems better than “housing shouldn’t fall in value”.

      • justOnePersistentKbinPlease@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        24 hours ago

        Housing completions is a fake statistic and is functionally the same as “housing shouldn’t fall in value.” Dont be fooled.

        E.g. last two years Vancouver BC led North America for the most housing starts, and was among the highest in the developed world.

        Because the price was increasing thanks to investors and speculators.

        Now that the price increase has cooled though? All of the developers simply stop building. Since feb 2025, housing starts in Vancouver are down by almost 50%.

        • Revan343@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          18 hours ago

          What we actually need is government housing, built en masse and rented out below market value

        • teppa@piefed.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          20 hours ago

          No it wasn’t. He wanted to open up more PR and family reunification so the elderly can come into our already failed healthcare system.

          Its basically the only issue I voted on.

          • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            18 hours ago

            Under assumption you voted for PP, the guy that wanted to give all Indian nationals Canadian citizenship if requested

            I feel like you don’t actually know what you voted for

            • teppa@piefed.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              14 hours ago

              If you read their plans his was tying immigration to housing, what else is more sane than that.

              He could be lying, but the other two parties plan were more of the same.

              • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 hours ago

                No, his housing plan was to stop federal funding transfers to municipalities that didn’t increase their population by 5% per year

                Again, tying immigration to housing funding was the NDP

  • Hemingways_Shotgun@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    24 hours ago

    To be fair. It’s Alberta.

    There’s a not insignificant chance that if someone named Peter Polliver was on the ballot, a number of albertans would be too irritated by the original’s quebecois name and immediately vote for the “proper canadian” guy instead.